Why Rush is not a Baboon
Biologists are generally reluctant to debate creationists and intelligent design advocates. The fear is that sharing a podium with them will create the perception that these views have substance. I have a different perspective that can be summarized as “the best defense is a vigorous offense.” Perhaps this attitude is colored by my undergraduate studies, where a heavy science curriculum was interspersed with military studies. In any case, I can’t recall a time when science has been under heavier fire, what with multiple GOP presidents questioning evolution, climate trends, and any other scientific finding that displeases the Republican Base. When fired upon, my instinct is to fire back. (Actually, it’s to call in airstrikes!). So today’s journal entry is return fire for a recent Rush Limbaugh pronouncement on evolution: "All I know is I've never been a chimpanzee, I don't believe this garbage I ever was, because we were chimpanzee, why are the chimpanzees still here? If we were baboons, you know, if we evolved from that, what happened to them? Why didn't they evolve, how come they got stuck still being idiot gorillas and stuff and we got to be humans?” What Rush is missing here is the very basic concept of the ecological niche. Every species that’s ever been alive had a particular place in the ecology of its time. Species that became extinct disappeared either because their niche disappeared (for example, because of an asteroid strike) or because a species better adapted to the niche came on the scene. For example, marsupial (pouched) animals like kangaroos and lemurs were once dominant. Now they are only native to islands like Australia and Madagascar. Why? Placental mammals (like cats, wolves, and people) came on the scene. In every case that marsupial and placental mammals have competed for a particular niche originally dominated by marsupials, the placentals won. Thus does evolution result in more complex species, when this complexity produces advantages over current species. So why are there both people and chimpanzees? Several million years ago the great forests of Africa began to shrink due to a drier climate. Chimps remained in the forests that remained. The grasslands produced by the drying opened entirely new ecological niches that favored an upright stance that allowed viewing over high grass and that freed hands for carrying and use of tools. So is that so hard to understand that a President of the United States can’t get it? Even a Republican President?
07.16.05 @ 06:32 PM EDT [link]

Feature of the Week
With Governor Arnold in the news, it’s time to revisit the political experiment that put him into office: California’s Bold Lessons for Democracy. Reading this in light of Schwarzenneger’s recent struggles, doesn’t it appear that California politics really is evolving in this direction?
07.15.05 @ 10:52 PM EDT [link]

What’s in a Named?
Any day now the Las Vegas oddsmakers will start taking bets on when Rove gets the boot. They’re a clear-eyed bunch, having to deal with hard, undeniable reality on a daily basis. It remains an open question on whether the Bush Administration, with its difficulty with and contempt for reality, will come to realize that Rove is already dead meat. If they had any brains they’d realize that they should be cutting their losses. And it should be said that Bush has made a tiny attempt to inoculate himself against Rove’s inevitable fall, by “reserving judgment” until the investigation is complete. What he’s really doing, of course, is kicking the ball downfield in the vain hope that this will all blow over. A criminal conviction on the charge of naming a covert agent is unlikely, given the required proof of precise knowledge of covert status. A criminal conviction for perjury before the grand jury is also a possibility, depending on whether Rove lied to them in the same way he lied to the public at large about not being “involved” with the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. If Rove is convicted on either of these counts, not even his staunchest supporters – including the President – could protect him. But such a conviction would be a long time in coming and there’s a real chance that, given the state of American justice, he’d get off whatever the evidence (need I drop the name Michael Jackson?). This has to be behind Bush’s calculations in having Rove sitting behind him when he made his comments about reserving judgment. The reality that Bush and the rest of the right wing are missing here is that it doesn’t take a conviction to turn a political figure into dead meat. All it takes is having your fig leaf ripped away for all to see. There are enough Undisputed Facts (UDs) out there to doom Rove’s position as Source of US Policy. UD1: He called a number of reporters and columnists, shopping the since-disproved suggestion that Ambassador Wilson’s (unpaid) trip to beautiful Lagos Nigeria was a junket. UD2: Wilson had just made allegations in the NY Times that Bush, in a State of the Union Speech, used the glaringly false justification for an Iraq invasion, an allegation that Wilson had previously debunked during his trip. In other words, the obvious motivation for Rove’s call to reporters and columnists was to punish a government official, properly doing his job, who was telling the truth about facts that put Bush in a bad light of his own making. UD3: The easily foreseeable result of the actions of Rove and his cronies was to permanently impede a CIA specialist with critical knowledge and experience extremely valuable to the War on Terror. That sounds a lot like treason! His defense that he “didn’t specifically name her” comes across as a suspect arguing that he’s not to blame for the death of a person who fell off the cliff after he pushed her because “gravity killed her.” UD4: Rove sent a smoking gun email to a reporter identifying Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent. UD5: Bush is on tape saying he would fire anyone involved with outing Plame. Like I said, he’s dead meat. The only question is how much gangrene we’ll see on the body of Bush Administration public support before the offending limb is finally amputated.
07.14.05 @ 08:58 PM EDT [link]

Squirming for Dummies
Apologists for the Bush Administration, dealing with the Rove debacle, are in heavy squirm mode. We are proud to say that many are apparently spidering SherWright.com, since they appear to have adopted all the helpful spins we volunteered yesterday. Let’s really provide them a service today, by pointing to the example presented by the SquirmMeiser himself, our Beloved Muse, Mr. Rush. Anyone listening to his “Rove” show yesterday knows he was in rare form. Indeed, his words deserve to be held up forever as the quintessential classic exemplar of squirm technique, representing for squirming what “the quick red fox jumped over the lazy brown dog” does for typing. As yet another value-added service, SherWright.com has thoughtfully categorized these techniques, so better to be accessible to desperate right-wing squirmers forced to work overtime by the revealing of Rove’s “she’s a CIA agent” email to Time reporter Matt Cooper. Ready? Let’s go!
1. Bluster. A Rush specialty. You shift the spotlight to a group that had nothing to do with the particulars of the affair. Example: “I'll tell you what I see. I see utter desperation. I see exactly what I have seen all along, the Democrats and the liberals, if it's not their last stand, it is one of them.”
2. “It’s a Non-Story.” Express surprise and dismay that any reasonable person would conclude that there is anything about the acts that are causing the squirming to have any significance. For example, “this is so pathetic to watch the media and the Democratic Party come together as one to go after Karl Rove on what is essentially a non-story.”
3. “Rove Who?” This is a version of “It’s a Non-Story.” Position the protagonist of the squirm as a nobody. Example: “How many Americans do you think can identify Karl Rove? In a name recognition survey, how many people? One percent may know who Karl Rove is, and 99% don't care, and in the 1% that know who he is, how many of those don't care?”
4. “Not a Crime.” Imply that a powerful public official is absolutely entitled to his high-salary position, irrespective of bad judgment, underhandedness, lying, etc., as long as he hasn’t been specifically convicted of a criminal act. Here’s Rush: “I think the Times is doing sort of a bait-and-switch here, by trying to focus the attention on Rove and focus the attention on Bush and the administration, at the same time diverting everybody's attention away from themselves, and, of course, to try to paint Judith Miller as this great principled, sympathetic figure and all that, and I'm just telling you it's not flying with me because there has been no crime committed here, and to watch the Democrats rally together?” Note how he has implied that the Liberal Media rather than Rove who committed some crime (without explaining what crime he’s thinking they committed.) Now that’s chutzpah!
5. “Active Investigation.” This is a version of “Not a Crime.” Rush: “Remember Janet Reno would not say a word about any ongoing investigation involving Clinton or anybody else.” Be careful to avoid admitting that you were ready to talk about it earlier, when the very same “active investigation” was underway.
6. Preemptive Strike. Poo-poo similarities to unflattering cases, making outrageous, laughable assertions if you have to. For example, people with an abnormally vivid imagination may start seeing spurious similarities with the Clinton impeachment, what with consensual sex not being a crime (and arguably non-substantive) and with Rove having professed to the American People that he did not have any involvement with the case of that woman Valerie Plame. Here’s Rush’s masterly employment of the PS: “theirs is an irrational attack, and that's what is Rove thing is illustrating, as do all of their attacks on Bush. This is irrational. The attacks on Clinton were based on genuine substance”

As an exercise, tune in to any newscast, and when the token Conservative apologist comes on, see how many of the Master’s squirm techniques you can spot!
07.13.05 @ 08:24 PM EDT [link]

Rove Rage Leads to Rove Kill
With Karl Rove in the news for being fingered as a source for the illegal naming of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame, it would be easy for this site to engage in some schadenfreude (delight in someone’s misfortunes). Consider that this very journal, on 10/8/2003, asked our beloved readers to “consider the question of whether the treasonous outing of the CIA NOC bears the ‘Mark of Rove.’” But we’ll rise above it. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony, “I come to praise Rove, not bury him.” Of course, this is a parody site! In any case, whereas the Administration is furiously parsing its pronouncements to date on this topic, and whereas this site is self-described as one of the nation’s linguistic treasures, therefore let us offer Rove and Co. some parsing pointers. First, it seems to be spuriously assumed that the President would fire any Administration figure involved with this affair. His exact words, however, were that he “would take care of” such a person. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that he was using “take care of” in the sense of Darth Vader being sent to “take care of” the new Emperor’s previous associates. This is clearly an unwarranted assumption! Bush’s real meaning was that he would “take care of” Karl in the same way he always has (which he why Karl drives a Jaguar!). But let’s get to the meat of the matter. Rove reportedly said “she (Ambassador Wilson’s wife) is with the CIA.” In subsequent statements denying involvement, he said three specific things: 1) He did “nothing wrong” 2) He did not release “any classified information,” and 3) he “did not disclose her identity.” The casual reader might clearly misinterpret the original statement, in comparison to the subsequent denials, as inconsistent at best and bald-ass lies at worst. However, please note (and admire!) the careful constructions, while we diligently parse his denials one at a time. Some might question his assertion that he did “nothing wrong” by asking the question “what the hell was he doing talking to a nationally-syndicated columnist about an Ambassador’s wife!? And what does her being in the CIA have anything to do with the price of tea!?” The answer is clear: such behavior might be vindictive and petty, but whether it is “wrong” is a matter of interpretation, right? I mean, look at the national interests involved: Ambassador Wilson was disclosing facts that might be interpreted by small-minded people as supporting the conclusion that the Bush Administration had cooked the intelligence on Iraq. Clearly such unpatriotic ideas needed to be nipped in the bud, so how could getting payback on Wilson be considered “wrong?!” As to the issue of classified info, the item that was actually classified was her name, and he didn’t actually say her name, right? That obviously also applies to his statement that he “did not disclose her identity.” While he did provide a “link” to her (as Wilson’s wife, a unique person in the world) such that it would be childsplay for a skilled reporter like Novak have her name within minutes, Rove didn’t actually say her name. In other words, when Rove said she is in the CIA, that’s only the same as “naming” a CIA agent (a felony) based on what the definition of “is” is!
07.12.05 @ 08:19 PM EDT [link]

Gallileo Figaro Stupido
I was thinking of Queen the other day. Not Elizabeth II, but the rock group. It was while I was reading the 7/7/05 opinion piece in the New York Times by Cardinal Schonborn, catholic archbishop of Vienna, the one where he expressed his opinion that Pope John Paul II’s comments in support of evolution (that I recently posted) were “vague and unimportant.” How does this involve Queen? Specifically, a verse from Bohemian Rhapsody: “Thunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening me Gallileo, Gallileo, Gallileo, Gallileo, Gallileo Figaro Magnifico.” Gallileo is clearly the issue. Consider this additional quote from John Paul II’s speech on evolution: “I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word.” Translation from Churchspeak: “I’ve been working to undo the damage done to the Church by its persecution of Gallileo.” Here’s a quick historical recap: Gallileo Gallelei of Pisa was one of the great scientists of all time, with important discoveries in physics, optics, and astronomy. In 1616 Galileo was summoned to Rome and ordered not to teach that the earth revolved around the sun. Later, in 1632, he published a work on the subject that “marked a turning point in scientific and philosophical thought.” He was tried by the Inquisition and forced to recant. It is said that as he arose from his knees he muttered “Nevertheless it does move.” He spent his remaining days under house arrest and seclusion. In 1979 Pope John Paul II sought to annul the conviction, which he was finally able to accomplish in 1992 (because the Church bureaucracy required “a rigorous hermeneutic”). The irony of the situation is clear. After 500 years, a pope with a unique respect for science finally reverses an embarrassing prosecution of a great scientist where, in the meantime, science showed that scientist to have been completely right and the Church of that time completely (and laughably) wrong. And now his successors seek to repeat the identical mistake! The only difference is that this time the field is biology rather than astronomy. The root of the conflict with science, though, is identical: naked vanity. It’s just so much easier to get puffed up over the significance of mankind when we’re 1) living on the planet at the very center of the universe and 2) totally unique in comparison to all other living things in the universe. What are the chances that at some point in the future they’ll be similarly marveling at the stupidity of those who today reject a century of exhaustive effort by not one but thousands of earth’s brightest minds?
07.11.05 @ 08:43 PM EDT [link]

Sesame Street’s New Lyrics
In honor of the expenditure of PBS funds (from members like you and me) by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, to monitor its broadcasts for examples of “liberal bias,” and of persistent attempts by Dittohead legislators to eliminate government funding from PBS’s diverse contributor mix.
Original words.

Sayin’ Nay
Better get on my way
If I stay, I know that I’ll get heat
Uncle Sam says to forget
Wasting time on Sesame Street

No can play
If I do I will pay
Bossy neighbors there
Narcin’ me’s a treat
Uncle Sam says to forget
Wasting time on Sesame Street

Now’s the time to run and hide
Always more eyes open wide
Nosy people like you--
Nosy people like
Got an eyeful?

Sayin’ Nay
I have no time to play
If I stay, I know that I’ll get heat
Uncle Sam says to forget
Wasting time on Sesame Street
Wasting time on Sesame Street
07.10.05 @ 07:23 PM EDT [link]